Dataset Information

A mixed methods evaluation of the maternal-newborn dashboard in Ontario: dashboard attributes, contextual factors, and facilitators and barriers to use: a study protocol.

ABSTRACT: There are wide variations in maternal-newborn care practices and outcomes across Ontario. To help institutions and care providers learn about their own performance, the Better Outcomes Registry & Network (BORN) Ontario has implemented an audit and feedback system, the Maternal-Newborn Dashboard (MND), for all hospitals providing maternal-newborn care. The dashboard provides (1) near real-time feedback, with site-specific and peer comparison data about six key performance indicators; (2) a visual display of evidence-practice gaps related to the indicators; and (3) benchmarks to provide direction for practice change. This study aims to evaluate the effects of the dashboard, dashboard attributes, contextual factors, and facilitation/support needs that influence the use of this audit and feedback system to improve performance. The objectives of this study are to (1) evaluate the effect of implementing the dashboard across Ontario; (2) explore factors that potentially explain differences in the use of the MND among hospitals; (3) measure factors potentially associated with differential effectiveness of the MND; and (4) identify factors that predict differences in hospital performance.A mixed methods design includes (1) an interrupted time series analysis to evaluate the effect of the intervention on six indicators, (2) key informant interviews with a purposeful sample of directors/managers from up to 20 maternal-newborn care hospitals to explore factors that influence the use of the dashboard, (3) a provincial survey of obstetrical directors/managers from all maternal-newborn hospitals in the province to measure factors that influence the use of the dashboard, and (4) a multivariable generalized linear mixed effects regression analysis of the indicators at each hospital to quantitatively evaluate the change in practice following implementation of the dashboard and to identify factors most predictive of use.Study results will provide essential data to develop knowledge translation strategies for facilitating practice change, which can be further evaluated through a future cluster randomized trial.

SUBMITTER: Dunn S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4855363 | biostudies-other | 2016 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Anorexia nervosa is a serious disorder, which often takes a chronic course. Early treatment leads to a significantly better prognosis and prevents chronicity. However, existing evidence on facilitators and barriers in anorexia nervosa treatment initiation is scarce. AIMS:Against this background, the FABIANA study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03713541) aims to (a) identify potentially modifiable facilitators and barriers from the perspectives of adolescent and adult patients with anorexia nervosa, carers and physicians, (b) develop and test an instrument for the combined assessment of multiple key facilitators and barriers, and (c) quantify the effect of potentially modifiable versus non-modifiable key facilitators and barriers on the duration of untreated illness (DUI) in patients with anorexia nervosa. METHOD:FABIANA is an observational, mixed-method-study divided into three consecutive substudies each corresponding to one of the study aims. All three substudies will include female patients with anorexia nervosa aged 14 years and older at the beginning of their first psychotherapeutic anorexia nervosa treatment. The qualitative substudy I and the quantitative substudy III will additionally include carers and involved physicians. The recruitment will take place at 20 cooperating study centres throughout Germany, which provide in-patient or out-patient anorexia nervosa specialist care. The DUI will be calculated based on the month of illness onset as determined in validated interviews on lifetime anorexia nervosa symptoms and the therapist-reported date of treatment initiation. CONCLUSIONS:Strengths and limitations of the retrospective assessment of the DUI will be discussed. The findings of the FABIANA study will contribute to the development of evidence-based early-intervention approaches and the prevention of a chronic course of illness. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03713541. DECLARATION OF INTEREST:None.

Project description:BackgroundMenu labelling is continuing to gather public and legislative support as one of the potential environmental strategies for addressing the obesity pandemic. However, issues relating to implementation have been reported in countries where menu labelling has been introduced on a voluntary or mandatory basis. The aim of this mixed methods systematic review is to synthesise the empirical evidence on the barriers and facilitators to implementation of menu labelling interventions to support healthy food choices.MethodsThis review will use the 'best fit' framework synthesis approach to synthesise qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods evidence. Peer-reviewed publications will be accessed through PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Scopus. Grey literature will be accessed through Google Scholar, OpenGrey, RIAN, EThOS, ProQuest, WorldCat, Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations, Open Access Theses and Dissertations, and public health organisation websites. Screening reference lists, citation chaining and contacting authors of all included studies will be undertaken. There will be no restriction on menu labelling scheme or format, publication year or language; however, only primary research studies relevant to supply-side stakeholders will be eligible for inclusion. Study quality will be assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. At least two independent reviewers will perform study selection, data extraction and quality appraisal; if consensus is required, another independent reviewer will be consulted. A combination of deductive coding, using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research as the a priori framework, and inductive analysis, using secondary thematic analysis, will be used. The overall process will assist in the construction of a new evidence-based conceptual model regarding the implementation of menu labelling interventions. The new model will be assessed for bias and a sensitivity analysis performed.DiscussionGiven the growing consensus that a systemic, sustained portfolio of obesity prevention strategies, delivered at scale, is needed to address the obesity epidemic, greater understanding of the practical issues relating to implementation of such strategies is required. Findings from this review will be used to develop a set of best-practice guidelines to enhance the adoption, implementation and sustainability of menu labelling interventions across countries worldwide.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42017083306.

Project description:BackgroundLung-protective ventilation (LPV) improves outcomes for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) through the administration of low tidal volumes (≤ 6.5 ml/kg predicted body weight [PBW]) with co-titration of positive end-expiratory pressure and fraction of inspired oxygen. Many patients with ARDS, however, are not managed with LPV. The purpose of this study was to understand the implementation barriers and facilitators to the use of LPV and a computerized LPV clinical decision support (CDS) tool in intensive care units (ICUs) in preparation for a pilot hybrid implementation-effectiveness clinical trial.MethodsWe performed an explanatory sequential mixed methods study from June 2018 to March 2019 to evaluate the variation in LPV adherence across 17 ICUs in an integrated healthcare system with > 4000 mechanically ventilated patients annually. We analyzed 47 key informant interviews of ICU physicians, respiratory therapists (RTs), and nurses in 3 of the ICUs using a qualitative content analysis paradigm to investigate site variation as defined by adherence level (low, medium, high) and to identify barriers and facilitators to LPV and LPV CDS tool use.ResultsForty-two percent of patients had an initial set tidal volume of ≤ 6.5 ml/kg PBW during the measurement period (site range 21-80%). LPV CDS tool use was 28% (site range 6-91%). This study's main findings revealed multi-factorial facilitators and barriers to use that varied by ICU site adherence level. The primary facilitator was that LPV and the LPV CDS tool could be used on all mechanically ventilated patients. Barriers included a persistent gap between clinician attitudes regarding the use of LPV and actual use, the perceived loss of autonomy associated with using a computerized protocol, the nature of physician-RT interaction in ventilation management, and the lack of clear organization measures of success.ConclusionsVariation in adherence to LPV persists in ICUs within a healthcare delivery system that was an early adopter of LPV. Potentially promising strategies to increase adherence to LPV and the LPV CDS tool for ARDS patients include initiating low tidal ventilation on all mechanically ventilated patients, establishing and measuring adherence measures, and focused education addressing the physician-RT interaction. These strategies represent a blueprint for a future hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial.

Project description:BackgroundApp-based treatment for urinary incontinence is a proven effective and cost-effective alternative to care as usual, but successful implementation requires that we identify and address the barriers and facilitators associated with app use.ObjectiveThe goal of the research was to explore the factors influencing app-based treatment for urinary incontinence and identify which barriers or facilitators are associated with treatment success or failure.MethodsWe used a sequential explanatory mixed methods design to connect the results of a randomized controlled trial with data from semistructured interviews. This previous RCT had shown the noninferiority of app-based treatment compared with care as usual for urinary incontinence over 4 months. Participants who reported success or failure with app-based treatment, as measured by the change in International Consultation on Incontinence Modular Questionnaire Urinary Incontinence Short Form symptom score, were selected for telephone interview by purposive sampling (n=17). This study reports mainly on the qualitative component of our mixed methods study. Qualitative analyses were conducted in two ways. First, we analyzed the qualitative data of all interviewed participants and discussed the relationships between the main themes. Second, the experiences between the success (n=9) and failure group (n=8) were compared and contrasted to explore factors that were positively or negatively associated with the quantitative effect of app-based treatment. These factors were then interpreted as barriers to and facilitators of successful app-based treatment.ResultsFour interrelated themes were identified as affecting the app based treatment effect: adherence, personal factors, app factors, and awareness. Qualitative analyses of the relationships between the themes showed that adherence-related factors directly influenced treatment effect in both a positive and negative matter. In turn, adherence was also positively and negatively influenced by the other 3 themes. Additionally, awareness was positively influenced by the treatment effect. Within these themes, several factors were identified that acted as barriers (eg, unrealistic expectation of time investment and interfering personal circumstances), facilitators (eg, strict integration of exercises and prior pelvic floor muscle therapy), or both (eg, personality traits and increased awareness of symptoms).ConclusionsThis study shows that the effect of app-based treatment for urinary incontinence is mainly influenced by adherence, which in turn is affected by personal factors, app-based factors, and awareness. The identified factors could function as both facilitators and barriers depending on the user and interaction with other themes. Insight into these facilitators and barriers could lead to improved implementation and increased treatment effectiveness by targeting women most likely to benefit and through further development of the app.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.1002/nau.23507.

Project description:Conduct a global situational analysis to identify the current facilitators and barriers to improving quality of care (QoC) for pregnant women, newborns and children.Metareview of published and unpublished systematic reviews and meta-analyses conducted between January 2000 and March 2013 in any language. Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) is used to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.Health systems of all countries. Study outcome: QoC measured using surrogate indicators--effective, efficient, accessible, acceptable/patient centred, equitable and safe.Conducted in two phases (1) qualitative synthesis of extracted data to identify and group the facilitators and barriers to improving QoC, for each of the three population groups, into the six domains of WHO's framework and explore new domains and (2) an analysis grid to map the common facilitators and barriers.We included 98 systematic reviews with 110 interventions to improve QoC from countries globally. The facilitators and barriers identified fitted the six domains of WHO's framework--information, patient-population engagement, leadership, regulations and standards, organisational capacity and models of care. Two new domains, 'communication' and 'satisfaction', were generated. Facilitators included active and regular interpersonal communication between users and providers; respect, confidentiality, comfort and support during care provision; engaging users in decision-making; continuity of care and effective audit and feedback mechanisms. Key barriers identified were language barriers in information and communication; power difference between users and providers; health systems not accounting for user satisfaction; variable standards of implementation of standard guidelines; shortage of resources in health facilities and lack of studies assessing the role of leadership in improving QoC. These were common across the three population groups.The barriers to good-quality healthcare are common for pregnant women, newborns and children; thus, interventions targeted to address them will have uniform beneficial effects. Adopting the identified facilitators would help countries strengthen their health systems and ensure high-quality care for all.

Dataset Information

A mixed methods evaluation of the maternal-newborn dashboard in Ontario: dashboard attributes, contextual factors, and facilitators and barriers to use: a study protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets